How Credible is Credibility Evidence in Refugee Status Determinations?

An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Legal Decision-Making, Witness Evidence and Credibility Assessments in Asylum-Seeking Systems

Part 1 - How does institutional discourse present "credibility" in asylum applications?

How do institutions and their agents conceptualise and evaluate credibility? How are social actors (asylumseekers, decision-makers, representatives, witnesses) presented? How is culture, language, socialisation, trauma-and their varied influences on behaviour-understood? Does institutional culture affect how credibility indicators are drafted and applied? How do decision-makers overcome credibility concerns? To what extent are decision-makers uniform and neutral when evaluating credibility?

Method. The study will use Critical Discourse Analysis and draw on at least three types of data: IPAT credibility assessment guidelines; published decisions; and semi-structured qualitative interviews with IPO personnel and Tribunal members.

Part 2 - Are commonly used credibility indicators suitable for refugee status determinations?
A common set of credibility indicators are used by refugee decision-makers around the globe. For instance, truth-tellers are thought to demonstrate internal and external consistency, along with higher levels of plausibility, detail, and coherence, than deceptive individuals. The demeanour of the applicant is also considered to be diagnostic of deception. Although some credibility indicators have attracted scrutiny in the legal literature,6 no research has systematically examined these indicators considering recent and substantial advances in psychological research on witness memory and deception.

Method. The study will consist of a systematic review of the witness memory and deception literatures, focussing on key areas and the complex processes at work when individuals seek to be recognised as refugees (including emotion, trauma, culture, socialisation, language).

Part 3 - Do decision-makers' hold accurate beliefs about credibility, deception and human behaviour?

Laypeople and trained professionals often hold erroneous beliefs about the workings of witness memory and how best to detect deceit.7 Although refugee status decision-makers receive training, it is rarely guided by scientific research and does not take into account the complex influences of culture, language, and trauma on asylum-seekers' cognition and behaviour.8 Part 3 will examine Tribunal members' and IPO Officers' beliefs about witness memory, detecting deception, and the underlying mechanisms that explain why cues to deceit occur.

Method. Both survey and experimental techniques will be used to gather data from large samples of decision-makers and matched controls. The research will investigate the beliefs held across different occupational groups, and determine the role of education, professional training, and experience in influencing those beliefs.